With the roster all but finalized and almost all of their core players under contract for multiple seasons, the status of Kentavious Caldwell-Pope’s future with the Pistons is the hottest topic in the latest edition of Pistons Mailbag.
Ken (Dharamsala, India): KCP did not shoot a good percentage last year. He took shots when well defended, off balance, too early in the clock for long guns. But he hit clutch shots late in games, played well against elite competition and had a very good playoff series, hitting 44 percent of his shots including threes. This kid works on defense and he is very competitive. Are Pistons coaches getting in his head this off-season? I see great potential in KCP if he plays more under control.
Langlois: He’s clearly a motivated player, Ken, so not sure there’s a need to “get in his head” so much as just continuing to work with him on skills development. That’s the biggest avenue for his personal improvement. Sure, he can still add some strength, but he’s a wiry 23-year-old for whom strength figures to come as a natural progression for the next handful of years. He came to the NBA a pretty raw offensive player who got his scoring done in college mostly on his athleticism and on shooting range, even if he had difficulty repeating his mechanics and with shot selection. I thought his shot selection actually became noticeably better last season. Some of the 3-point shots that probably made you wince as a longtime basketball fan – pull-up triples in transition, for instance – are now considered pretty good options. A wide-open three is a wide-open three, no matter when it comes in the clock, and teams build big chunks of their offensive playbooks around the creation of wide-open threes. Stan Van Gundy was very quickly taken with Caldwell-Pope’s competitiveness but he’s become more sure of his value as he’s seen him mature and understand the dedication required to be a consistently positive performer. Caldwell-Pope, as he’s done the past few summers, makes Atlanta in his home state his training base, working under the direction of another Georgian (and former NBA player), Dion Glover, who is on staff with the team’s D-League affiliate, the Grand Rapids Drive.
Darrell (Detroit): In the event the Pistons aren’t able to extend KCP this year and if another team offers him a max contract next summer, do you think the Pistons would match? Also, if the Pistons decide not to match, do you think Stanley Johnson could fill the position on a permanent basis?
Langlois: It’s not quite as clear cut as Andre Drummond’s situation, Darrell, simply for the fact that there was never any doubt – Pistons owner Tom Gores made that emphatically clear – that the team was prepared to offer Drummond a maximum contract. The delay – instead of agreeing to the extension last fall, both sides put contract talks on hold until this July – was simply a matter of allowing the Pistons to go into 2016 free agency with cap space. The Pistons don’t figure to have the same issues with preserving cap space next summer – with virtually every other member of the rotation under team control, with the likely exception of Aron Baynes, headed into 2017-18, they’ll have too much money committed for cap space to be possible – so it will come down strictly to the two sides finding a number both find suitable. The Pistons surely understand what the market is for young, productive shooting guards – Bradley Beal and C.J. McCollum have set the bar, with Allen Crabbe’s four-year, $75 million deal propping it up – so they’ll have plenty of time to weigh the ramifications of what Caldwell-Pope’s next contract means for their overall salary structure. I think it’s fair to assume they will do everything prudent to avoid losing him for zero or minimal return.
Callum (Taylor Lakes, Ohio): What sort of annual salary would you assume KCP will be chasing with his extension? And if he doesn’t sign before the season starts, could we look to trade him during the season and what would you expect in return? We could trade him to a team that could afford to pay him and get a decent asset in return, maybe? I know he has shown great improvement and is a very good perimeter defender, but we can’t afford for someone to offer him the max, for example, next off-season if we can’t afford to match. In this scenario, we lose him for nothing. What are your thoughts?
Langlois: The front office plots out salary-cap scenarios two and three years down the road, Callum. They aren’t going to be caught off-guard by any scenario. As I alluded to in response to Darrell, the going rate for young starting shooting guards is well north of $15 million a year. C.J. McCollum’s four-year extension is reportedly worth $106 million. I don’t know how the Pistons view Caldwell-Pope vis a vis McCollum – McCollum is a more refined scorer, Caldwell-Pope the vastly superior defender – but you can be sure KCP’s reps will use that deal as a benchmark in negotiations. That’s not to say the Pistons won’t have countering negotiating points, but they surely have considered the ramifications of a contract of similar magnitude for their ability to field a balanced and competitive roster going forward. As for the prospect of trading him at mid-season, it’s meaningless to speculate on the prospects at this point without knowing the Pistons’ situation at the time and the needs prospective trade partners might have. The performance of other players on the roster – Stanley Johnson, Darrun Hilliard, Reggie Bullock – would be one factor. If the Pistons feel they could absorb the loss of Caldwell-Pope while simultaneously improving the roster elsewhere and giving themselves greater cap flexibility at the same time, then, sure, it’s one option among several. I don’t doubt Stan Van Gundy’s overwhelming preference is to keep Caldwell-Pope on the roster – but not to the detriment of the organization’s future.
Jason (Chicago): As I’ve been reading the breakdown of this upcoming season’s roster by position, Stanley Johnson seems to (at least, in a pinch) have a range of possibilities from at least the one to three spots. Does the “jack of all trades, master of none” expression come into play here? As possibly the sixth man on the team with his versatility and size for various positions, is he foregoing any developmental consistency in a particular position?
Langlois: I wouldn’t quite go with the “jack of all trades, master of none” descriptive for Johnson, but I agree with the underlying premise. With most lottery picks, as Johnson was, you can point to one or perhaps two things they do that gives the drafting team optimism they can develop into one of the league’s best at that particular skill. With Johnson, there were a bunch of things he did at an NBA-average level coming into the league but nothing where you could say, wow, he does that one thing better than a lot of NBA players already – not shooting, passing, ballhandling, rebounding. Defending? Yeah, one on one, at least, he came into the league an above-average defender. Johnson’s appeal is that none of those things really count as weaknesses, either, and all of them have the potential to develop into strengths. I’m not sure what he’ll be known for particularly well, but his drive and his all-around skill set make him a unique player and one with a very high ceiling. I don’t think playing multiple positions will hinder his development. The Pistons are helping him take a more targeted approach to his skills development, though, and that should help. I think it’s easy to say that Johnson is going to get better in different areas of his game, season over season, for a very long time.
Tom (Northville, Mich.): Haven’t heard anything about improving Andre Drummond’s free-throw shooting. Is there anything planned or is there ongoing activity to get him to 50 percent?
Langlois: Both Drummond and Stan Van Gundy spoke on this topic when the Pistons held a July 15 press conference to announce Drummond’s new contract. They’re being deliberately vague about what changes have been implemented, but both expressed confidence that we would see positive results. Whether we’ll see a noticeable difference in his mechanics or not isn’t clear. Van Gundy said after the season ended that it was a matter that went beyond mechanics or simply spending more time shooting free throws, indicating that there was a significant mental component that needed attention. A player’s preseason free-throw shooting normally ranks well down the list of training-camp intrigue, but it will be one of the biggest items that bear watching when the Pistons gather in late September to get the 2016-17 season rolling.
Lenon (Detroit): Without question, top to bottom, this is the most talented Pistons team we have ever had. I’m curious if this team matches up with the Goin’ to Work championship team led by Ben and Chauncey. Can you do your annual “State of the Franchise” in comparative analysis format showing advantages and disadvantages between the two teams? Can’t wait to see your findings.
Langlois: I agree, if by “ever” you mean “since 2008.” I like this team now and I like it’s potential even more. But “most talented Pistons team we have ever had” is a bit of a stretch. The Bad Boys had three Hall of Famers and a second unit that could have been a playoff team on its own. The Goin’ to Work Pistons might not produce any Hall of Famers – Ben Wallace and Chauncey Billups have solid resumes to consider and Rip Hamilton and Rasheed Wallace were among the best at their positions for many seasons, as well – but they had five of the NBA’s top 50 players for a stretch of several seasons. This Pistons team has had one cumulative All-Star appearance – Andre Drummond’s, last season. They’re very young, very well coached and clearly on an upward trajectory. There is every reason in the world to be excited and optimistic about the coming season. But they’ll need to do more than qualify for the playoffs to invoke any meaningful comparisons with the two greatest eras of Pistons teams.
Buk (Bangkok, Thailand): Is there any precedence for a team “grooming” a future head coach? For example, would Tom Gores consider hiring Chauncey Billups as an assistant with the idea that he could learn on the job and become the head coach of the future?
Langlois: It happens more in college basketball, Buk, where programs are sensitive to the recruiting dilemma presented when an aging head coach faces questions about whether he’ll be around to coach the 16- and 17-year-old prospects he’s pursuing. It doesn’t happen, at least not in any formal sense, in the NBA. As for Billups, he was adamant at the end of his playing career that he wasn’t particularly interested in a coaching career, preferring to start on a path that would allow him the chance to became a general manager one day. He flirted with an attractive offer to become the top assistant for Frank Vogel in Orlando this summer, but declined for family reasons with his daughters still in school in his native Denver. He’s generated tremendous respect in all corners of the league and should be able to skip a few rungs on the ladder in whichever direction he chooses. But Tom Gores would almost certainly never force any hire on Stan Van Gundy. I don’t know that Van Gundy has any meaningful relationship with Billups other than having coached against him over the years. It’s not unprecedented for a coach to hire an assistant with whom he’s not had a previous relationship, but it’s a lot more the exception than the rule. When Van Gundy formed his first staff with the Pistons, he brought with him three assistants who’d worked for him before – Brendan Malone, Bob Beyer and Charles Klask – and two players he’d coached, Tim Hardaway and Malik Allen. With Malone stepping aside this season, Van Gundy replaced him with Otis Smith, with whom he had a longstanding relationship from their days as coach and general manager in Orlando.
Ahmed (San Antonio): The NBA has 82 regular-season games – too many. I think they should have four preseason games and 55 regular-season games without any back-to-back games. I think 55 games would help older players remain fresh. If the season starts off during November it would be helpful since the World Series would be over before the NBA starts. What are your thoughts?
Langlois: Slicing 27 games off the NBA season would essentially reduce revenue by 33 percent. As much as the quality of play might benefit, neither side – owners or players – seems very likely to willingly give up that much money. The TV networks – and their contributions to the pie are, far and away, the biggest driver of NBA revenue – aren’t going to pay the same kind of money for a 55-game season that they’re willing to pay for an 82-game season. Players that just signed contracts that might pay them $12 million or $24 million a season aren’t going to suddenly agree to take $8 million and $16 million. Season-ticketholders paying $3,000 or $5,000 for their seats aren’t going to pay the same to watch 27 or 28 games (another issue with your 55-game proposal: who gets 27 home dates and who gets 28?) as they are to watch 41. It would be great to eliminate back to backs, but it’s probably never going to happen with most teams sharing arenas with hockey teams and all teams preferring weekend to weekday dates.